Join Date: Apr 2003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Originally Posted by OnTheFence
My husband does this!
A few weeks after 911 he actually followed a Muslim couple home that lived in our neighborhood. He saw her nursing her baby in the front seat at a red light. First, he thought that it would be awful if they were pulled over when there was such an ill climate at that time towards Muslims by a police officer and Second, he said, had they been in a car accident that baby would have flown threw the windshield. (mom didnt have a seat belt on that he could see) I think he scared them because he got out of his car and at a distance spoke to the husband and let him know that his wife couldnt be doing that. The wife thanked him and the husband had this look like Jeff might kill him. Which wasnt the case, he just didnt want to see them or their child get hurt.
Originally Posted by boingo82
It happens though, that those "certain kinds" of accidents account for more than half of all fatal accidents. They also tend to be at much higher speeds than side and rear-impact collisions...This is because in a side or rear impact collision only ONE vehicle is travelling towards the other. Often the other is moving away reducing the speed of the crash.
In a frontal impact you have either a vehicle moving towards a stationary object, or two vehicles both moving towards each other...it is not unusual to see a combined impact speed of over 75-100mph in these collisions.
Since vehicles are almost always moving *forward* when they're moving, it stands to reason that they would usually crash on the front end..and in fact statistics reflect this.
Children Ages 0-8 years
fatalities by impact zone
Frontal: 3393 (51%)
Rear: 623 ( 9%)
No. That is incorrect. You could state that being in the backseat is more dangerous in certain cars, in the event of a rear-impact collision, but statistics show that type of collision to be MUCH less frequent and MUCH less severe, so the backseat is not "MORE dangerous" overall. The fact is that statistically, it is safer to place everyone of value in the backseat.
That is a big IF, considering that your rear-impact accident will likely never occur, and if it did, would be much LESS severe than the frontal impact that is more likely.
Please see "deaths by crash type and point of impact" halfway down.
It is just plain common sense to protect against the most COMMON and FATAL collision, the frontal impact...that is why we rear-face our children and keep them in the backseat.
If these rear collisions were so common and dangerous, rearfacing infants would NOT be recommended, since rearfacing is less safe *in a rear-impact collision*.
|85 members and 10,901 guests|
|1babysmom , agentofchaos , alada , AlmostJenny , angeebaby , ASM21830 , BeautifulLife02 , bellajane , blessed#7 , bluefaery , Cherry_Blossom , Crimson8 , Dakotacakes , Deborah , easydoesit , element2012 , emmy526 , frugalmama , Galatea , Gh2016 , greenemami , hillymum , homemom123123 , iceface , indianhub75 , Iron Princess , ismewilde , japonica , jeomom3 , jeslynn , K703 , Kate&Joey , katelove , kathymuggle , Kelleybug , Linda on the move , maiajay , mama24-7 , mamabear0314 , mariamadly , meghanmetz , Milk8shake , Mirzam , moominmamma , MountainMamaGC , MylittleTiger , NathalieM , NaturallyKait , newmamalizzy , Nnsc23 , oaksie68 , Oceanage , oceansolitude , pokeyac , rabbitmomma , Ragana , rapidre66 , RollerCoasterMama , Rsmith2 , rubelin , sageowl , samaxtics , SandiMae , sarafl , SchoolmarmDE , sciencemum , shantimama , Shmootzi , siennaflower , slammerkin , smokeinhereyes , Sneezykids , Snydley , SpiralChrissy , Springshowers , starlitjones , stephalittle , talldarkeyes , treekidsandadog , Turquesa , TweedleZee , VsAngela , zuleicamoon|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.|